Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remarquablement fictionnalisée par Monique LaRue dans son roman La gloire de Cassiodore, la question de la double profession des écrivains, dans l’histoire de la littérature au Québec, n’a fait l’objet que de rares observations. L’on sait pourtant que l’exercice de cet « autre » métier est une nécessité structurante du champ littéraire. Le présent article amorce une réflexion sur ces doubles carrières, à partir d’exemples où le dédoublement professionnel entraîne l’usage d’une double signature. Dans ce cas, le pseudonyme est non plus le prolongement de l’écriture, mais une manière de poser l’identité double, de distinguer entre la vie et l’oeuvre, d’opérer une rupture entre les deux univers. Sans doute que cette pratique singulière de la signature agit comme révélateur de la conception que les écrivains se font de la littérature à des époques diverses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".